Programs

Bio

Elliott Abrams is senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, DC. He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor in the administration of President George W. Bush, where he supervised U.S. policy in the Middle East for the White House.

Abrams was educated at Harvard College, the London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School. After serving on the staffs of Senators Henry M. Jackson and Daniel P. Moynihan, he was an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and received the secretary of state's Distinguished Service Award from Secretary George P. Shultz. In 2012, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy gave him its Scholar-Statesman Award.

Abrams was president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, from 1996 until joining the White House staff. He was a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 1999 to 2001 and chairman of the commission in the latter year, and served a second term as a member of the Commission in 2012-2014. From 2009 to 2016, Abrams was a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which directs the activities of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. He is a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, and teaches U.S. foreign policy at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

Abrams joined the Bush administration in June 2001 as special assistant to the president and senior director of the National Security Council for democracy, human rights, and international organizations. From December 2002 to February 2005, he served as special assistant to the president and senior director of the National Security Council for Near East and North African affairs. He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy from February 2005 to January 2009, and in that capacity supervised both the Near East and North African affairs and the democracy, human rights, and international organizations directorates of the National Security Council.

Abrams is the author of four books: Undue Process, Security and Sacrifice, Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, and Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. He is the editor of three more, Close Calls: Intervention, Terrorism, Missile Defense and "Just War" Today; Honor Among Nations: Intangible Interests and Foreign Policy;and The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Languages:

French (fluent), Spanish (fluent)

Middle East Policy After the "Arab Spring"

When protests swept the Arab world in 2011, the United States hoped that the so-called Arab Spring would bring a wave of liberalization and democratization to the Middle East. Today, with much of the region still contending with instability, sectarian violence, and authoritarianism, the United States faces several foreign policy conundrums. Should Washington resign itself to "Arab exceptionalism"—the long-held belief that Arab societies are immune to global waves of democratization— and give up on its hopes for political progress in the region? Should it seek the closest possible relations with existing governments regardless of their political characteristics? Or should it back the players, in each society, who continue to struggle for liberal values, democratic institutions, and human rights? And if the latter, does the United States know how to act effectively to promote political reform while limiting the damage to its relations with those in power? My work on these issues will result in a book outlining the nature of the challenge and suggesting how U.S. foreign policy should address it. I also convene the Middle Eastern Studies Roundtable Series to discuss these questions.

This project is made possible in part through the support of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

The Future of the Middle East "Peace Process"

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process never ends—nor does it seem to make much progress. In blog entries, op-eds, and magazine articles (and in my most recent book, Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict), I analyze the often energetic American efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement and the Israeli and Palestinian reactions to them. There were no serious negotiations during President Obama's first term. In 2013, a dogged effort by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry brought the parties back to the table, but the talks collapsed acrimoniously nine months later. Are there any hopes for reviving the negotiations now, after the Gaza war? And would such talks have any real chance of achieving a two-state solution, or do the Israelis and Palestinians participate in them only to calm their publics and satisfy the insistent Americans? I look at the periodic negotiations, the domestic politics of both sides, and the facts on the ground that may be leading toward or away from realistic solutions.

How to Advance Human Rights

Over the last decade, human rights groups have documented a decline in freedom around the world. In some countries, such as Venezuela and Egypt, elected leaders used democracy to get into power and then abused that power; in others, such as Russia, autocrats have simply acted more forcefully against their opponents. The question for the United States is how to weigh the importance of promoting human rights and determine what tools are most effective in doing so. In my experience, firm presidential leadership and pressure work better than the human rights and democracy promotion programs of USAID, the State Department, and other U.S. government bodies in affecting foreign governments' behavior. The nongovernmental and civil society organizations that Washington supports abroad seem to protest more effectively than they build. Strong democratic political parties are essential for advancing political change. How should the United States help democratic activists build them? Can it help protect such people while they work for democracy in dangerous settings? These are issues I address in occasional writings.

The Obama obsession with Israeli settlement activity ruined his policy toward Israel, prevented the negotiations he wanted, and was not based on the facts. The Trump administration should take a very different approach, Elliott Abrams argues in Foreign Policy magazine.

While Donald Trump was getting himself elected president, various factions of the American Left were fighting over just how much to boycott Israel. Elliott Abrams explains their ludicrous debate in The Weekly Standard.

For the first time ever, the United States abstained in the annual United Nations General Assembly vote to condemn the U.S. embargo of Cuba. The vote was bad enough; the explanation of vote offered by our envoy at the UN was in many ways even worse. Elliott Abrams explains the problem in National Review.

President Obama and his defenders are trumpeting the new aid agreement with Israel as proof that he is the best friend Israel ever had in the White House. In fact, it’s a bad deal and should be treated the same way Obama treated prior agreements he didn't like: It should be forgotten by the next president.

New polls of Israelis and Palestinians prove that peace is not at hand, and views on a peace deal are very far apart. But they also contain some interesting data, as Elliott Abrams explains in National Review.

The 2016 Republican Party platform contains no references to the two-state solution. Is this a crisis? Elliott Abrams writes in National Review that, after years of failed attempts to broker a peace agreement, the United States should seek to promote the goal of peace without dictating one sole path forward.

Reacting to the Brexit vote, critics question whether the UK deserves a UN Security Council seat. If the British do not deserve a seat, then the Russians certainly do not, Elliott Abrams writes in National Review.

We know what President Obama thinks of Islamism, but how does he view Communism and the Cold War? Obama’s misunderstanding of Islamism may be matched by his misunderstanding of Communism and of America’s role in the 20th century, as Elliott Abrams explains in National Review.

How should Republicans who are aghast at the forthcoming nomination of Donald Trump react, now and after the convention? There are valuable lessons from 1972, when “Jackson Democrats” and others in the Democratic Party had to deal with the McGovern nomination.

Hope springs eternal when it comes to human rights in Iran. The election in 2013 of President Hassan Rouhani, who replaced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was supposed to bring improvement. The purported victory of moderates in the recent legislative and Islamic clerics’ Assembly of Experts elections was believed to be a positive development.

Bernie Sanders recently spoke at some length about Israel, with the New York Daily News. Elliott Abrams analyzed the interview in The Weekly Standard, finding no hostility to the Jewish State—but confusion and misinformation.

If American Jews and Israel, are drifting apart, what’s the reason? That is the title of Elliott Abrams’s review essay in Mosaic, covering two new books that blame Israel—and its government’s policies—for the apparent drift. But the conventional wisdom is wrong, and the problems lie at home, among American Jews, not in Jerusalem.

The UN has filled the post of “Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine” with someone whose one-sided, biased track record of bashing Israel should have disqualified him immediately. Elliott Abrams tells the story in National Review.

The UN Human Rights Council is about to choose another “Special Rapporteur” on Palestinian rights, whose job it is to attack Israel. The lead candidates seem to be the two most biased people they could find, as Elliott Abrams explains in National Review.

Critics of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last year attacking the Iran nuclear deal were certain it would harm Israel’s support in the United States. But a new Gallup poll shows that Israel’s popularity among Democrats has risen over the last year, as Elliott Abrams explains in the Weekly Standard.

Events

Conflict in the Middle East has been near the top of the American foreign policy agenda for a half century. Through discussions with academic experts and especially with current and former government officials, this roundtable series aims to inform the debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as other challenges facing the region. These roundtables discuss developments in the region and the goals and impact of U.S. actions, with an eye to deepening understanding of the Middle East and analyzing how to make U.S. foreign policy more effective.

CFR Events

Meeting ⁄ Washington

Regional Challenges and Opportunities: The View from Saudi Arabia and Israel

What To Do About The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs, National Security Council (2002-2005)

, Edward P. Djerejian

Director, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1993-1994) and Syria (1988-1991)

Executive Vice President, The Brookings Institution; Former Special Envoy for the Israeli Palestinian Negotiations, U.S. Department of State (2013-2014); Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1995-1997 and 2000-2001)

The Washington Post quotes Elliott Abrams’s recent Pressure Points blog, in which he argues that corruption within Fatah and the Palestinian Authority may lead to a Hamas victory in upcoming West Bank municipal elections.

In an interview with CNN International’s Clarissa Ward, Elliott Abrams explains the inconsistences in Donald Trump’s August 15 terrorism speech, saying that “what was good in the speech was not new and what was new in the speech was not good.”

Elliott Abrams is quoted by Politico as saying that many former Republican national security officials have good reason not to enter the public conversation about Donald Trump’s candidacy—as private citizens, they are concerned about more than just national security-related issues.

Elliott Abrams is quoted in the Washington Post as saying that the leaked details regarding the Obama administration’s recent cash transfers to the Iranian regime show just how mistaken this policy is.

The New York Times quotes Elliott Abrams as saying that a declaration of war would not help our efforts against ISIS, though Donald Trump is right that a new, more aggressive strategy against the terror group is necessary.

The Algemeiner quotes Elliott Abrams as saying that the Obama administration’s reconsideration of the importance of Israel’s qualitative military edge is yet another sign of the president’s poor record of support for Israel.

The Algemeiner quotes Elliott Abrams as saying that the recent election of President Mauricio Macri will positively affect the investigation into the death of Alberto Nisman, but is unlikely to change Argentina’s relations with Iran.

Elliott Abrams is quoted in The Australian Jewish News as saying that not all developments in the Middle East have been negative, as relations between several Arab states and Israel have never been better.

Elliott Abrams is quoted in The Australian as saying that degrading the Assad regime’s military capabilities in order to prevent it from carrying out more massacres is a necessary step in defeating ISIS and finding a long-term solution for Syria.

In an article in Politico on the unprecedented four month delay of the State Department’s annual human rights report, Elliott Abrams’s blog Pressure Points is quoted as linking the delay to administration desires not to issue a critical report on Iran while the nuclear deal is being negotiated.

In response to Michael Oren’s claims that Obama administration officials had secretly cheered when Assistant Secretary of State Jim Steinberg scolded him in a meeting he did not know was being broadcast to them, Elliott Abrams is quoted as saying that such practices were unheard of during his time in the Bush and Reagan administrations.

In an article in Newsweek, Elliott Abrams is quoted as saying that while he cannot know for certain that Iraq would not have fragmented if 10,000 troops would have remained, it certainly was more likely to prevent that from happening than a complete military withdrawal.

Elliott Abrams is quoted in a Jewish Journal article about the Israeli think tank BESA’s discussion of U.S.-Israel relations. He notes that while fundamentalist Christian support for Israel is steadfast, Israel’s support among the general population could erode if it no longer appears interested in pursuing a two-state solution.

Elliott Abrams is interviewed by Bloomberg News regarding Jeb Bush’s foreign policy, the George W. Bush administration, and the Iraq War. Abrams explains that if administration officials had known that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, most would have opposed the invasion or Iraq.

As a panelist on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, Elliott Abrams weighs in on the growing instability in the Middle East. He explains how Iran’s aggressive actions and subversive activities have created chaos in the region, and how Sunni states are reacting.

In the Washington Post’s blog Right Turn, Elliott Abrams is interviewed about the recent Israeli elections. He explains that despite the Obama administration’s best efforts, Prime Minister Netanyahu was re-elected. The question now is whether Obama and Netanyahu will make an effort to repair relations between the two governments.

In an article in USA Today, Elliott Abrams was interviewed on the results of the recent Israeli elections. He explains the that the rift between the U.S. and Israeli administrations is growing and why it seems like the Obama administration doesn’t care to patch things up.

In an interview with Fox News, Elliott Abrams discusses the upcoming Israeli elections. Abrams explains that many Israelis are focusing on domestic affairs like the cost of living more than security questions like Iran. This benefits the opposition coalition led by Isaac Herzog.

In the Washington Post blog Right Turn, Elliott Abrams is quoted as saying that although John Kerry questions Netanyahu’s credibility because he was in favor of the Iraq war, Kerry himself was in favor of the war before he was against it.

In an article in the New Republic, Elliott Abrams is quoted on Rand Paul’s proposed Stand with Israel Act and says cutting funding to Palestinian Authority would not be a useful step for promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

According to the 2015 Freedom House report, “Freedom in the World” is on the decline for the ninth consecutive year. Elliott Abrams points to America's perceived decline in power and diminished interest in advancing human rights under President Obama as factors contributing to this trend.

In the wake of rising anti-Semitism in France and the terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, Elliott Abrams discusses the precarious situation of Jews living in Europe and what needs to be done to restore a sense of security to those communities.

In the wake of the Palestinian Authority's failed attempt to receive recognition as a state from the United Nations Security Council and its upcoming appeal to the ICC, Elliott Abrams explains that Fatah's bold steps on the international stage are the product of its fears to face Hamas and its own population.

With the rise of the Islamic State and the obliteration of the Iraq-Syria border, Elliott Abrams explains why striking the Islamic State exclusively in Iraq would turn Syria into a safe haven for its forces.

Elliott Abrams, Thomas Pickering, and Stephen Walt examine President Obama's commencement speech at West Point. They discuss the President's policies on intervention, human rights, and the armed forces.